but with the advent of new science, it's gone a little further down the rabbit hole.

we are indeed living in an illusory world.

here's an article:

Are we real? How do we know if we really exist or whether we could be living in a computer simulation, somewhat like The Matrix? The simulation argument puts forward the view that we are almost definitely living in a computer simulation.

The Simulation Argument

At the core of the simulation argument, there are three points:

The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small

Almost no technologically mature civilizations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours

You are almost certainly in a simulation.

The argument says that one of these three points will be true.

Are there technologically advanced civilizations out there?

This is a difficult one as we still don't know whether we are alone in the universe and how life started. There's the whole panspermia theory which argues that life was brought to Earth by asteroids and that we're all descended from alien organisms. Or perhaps life started on Earth? The game of life shows us how complex patterns can come from simple rules.

We can also look at the Drake Equation which is a way of speculating how many civilizations there are in the universe. And the Hubble Deep Field shows us really how big our universe is.

But still to this date we haven't found any life out there. The Wow! Signal is the closest SETI has ever got.

Because of the sheer size of the universe, and the fact that we've managed to evolve to such a point without getting wiped out, we can take the first point - that all life will be wiped out before it is technologically mature - to be false.

Would we run computer simulations of minds?

If we now assume that there are technologically advanced civilizations with the technology to simulate life, we now have to ask whether they would. This could happen for ethical or scientific reasons.

Perhaps civilizations would not be interested in running a simulation of life. But would they really have become so advanced if they lacked the scientific curiosity?

Would technologically advanced civilizations have a moral objection to creating simulations of life?

At the moment - as a civilization - we haven't reached the point where we are sophisticated enough technologically to simulate a universe in a computer.

If we look back 25 years to the BBC Micro or even further to the days before personal computers, we see how far computers have come in a short space of time. In a few decades time, it is perfectly feasible that we'll be able to build a computer which could simulate a civilization. Some analysts believe we'll reach the technological singularity in 2045 when computers will surpass humans and become "conscious".

Looking at our own world, we already see scientists modelling life and the world on computers. We have gamers controlling their avatars on The Sims. The upcoming game Spore takes it one step further. And cloning and genetic modification are slowly becoming more accepted. We're already playing god. When computers be sufficiently powerful, we'll still be playing god.

There's no reason to assume that other technologically advanced civilizations will behave any differently. And even if such a thing was sanctioned, individuals or groups will still be able to find ways around such rules and control.

We can argue that if there are civilizations out there with the technological sophistication to simulate life in a computer then they will probably do so.

This means the second point - that all technologically mature civilizations will not be interested in running simulations - is incorrect.

So are we living in a simulation?

The simulation argument says that if we take the previous two points to be false - the third is true. Therefore, if we believe that there are technologically advanced civilizations out there with the technology to run a simulation of life, and that those civilizations are interested in running a simulation, we will almost definitely be living in a simulation.

It's simply a matter of probability and statistics. One computer simulating a universe would have to contain billions of organisms and each technologically advanced civilization will probably have many "Matrices" running simulations. And each of these simulated worlds could have their own technologically advanced civilizations running simulations. And inside those simulations, there could be more simulations.

Statistically, the vast majority of organisms will be living in a computer simulation (by several powers).

How does this affect us?

Whether we live in a computer simulation or not doesn't really affect how we should live our lives. The world is still going to the same - the same things make us happy and the same problems will still have to be solved.

Even if we're not real, we perceive our world to be real. This is similar to the brain in a vat thought experiment. We can never be totally sure whether we are materialistically real. We could be inside a computer simulation but we are still real in the sense that we have thoughts and feelings.

"If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply signals interpreted by your brain."

- Morpheus in The Matrix

More controversially, we could also link it back to religion and creation. If we believe that we are almost definitely living in a computer simulation, we should ask "who built that simulation?" and "why was it built?". If we are indeed living in a computer simulation, then it reasons that the simulation was created by somebody - our "creator".

The argument doesn't tell us anything about why we are here. Could we be part of a huge social or scientific experiment? In The Matrix, the human population is used as a energy source.

And there will be people who will see the simulation argument as a way to prove the existence of God. Though it does suggest a omniscient and omnipotent creator it doesn't say anything about such a creator. Besides, would a creator create a whole universe of simulated organisms to worship him?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Cartesian Dualism, as the base of this argument, is just as unfounded as any other real theory of conciousness. For this to be true it would pressupose a working, whole knowledgeo of consciousness, both direct and sub.

I think this is more interesting into the future of our lives, rather than questioning whether we are in a simulation. I feel like this speaks more towards science fiction as a humanitarian manifest destiny. We look to sci fi to direct the means of empirical research and in such just fulfill the dreams we had in the past.

Also, one could make the argument that as a physically limited being that which we interpret at reality is constrained already and thus a personal simulation of it. The percieved world is far different from what "reality" is. Objectively agreeing on a reality is near impossible due to subjective experience and inverted qualia, so what of even attempting to create a simulated world with such experiences? We should first have to understand the nature of consciousness itself as a whole, in relation to the "real world" before any of this would even become porbable.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I haven't had the time to read this yet. But can we please stop talking about that fake documentary. It has already been shown the people were quacks.

But this specific stuff is cool. I am just tired of hearing about that film.

i think that there is an obvious line between the theories in that movie and the fact.

it's easy enough for me to see that.

quantum mechanics are a real science. the explanations of such are all real science.

whether or not you want to call the film "junk science" is up to you.

Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems. For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. Quantum entanglement does not enable the transmission of classical information faster than the speed of light (see discussion in next section below).

Quantum entanglement is closely concerned with the emerging technologies of quantum computing and quantum cryptography, and has been used to experimentally realize quantum teleportation. At the same time, it prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions concerning quantum theory. The correlations predicted by quantum mechanics, and observed in experiment, reject the principle of local realism, which is that information about the state of a system should only be mediated by interactions in its immediate surroundings. Different views of what is actually occurring in the process of quantum entanglement can be related to different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You keep stating that you're not "one of those" conpiracy nuts, and I want to believe you, but everything you continue to state continues to follow the pattern of a "conspiracy nut." If it quacks like a duck...

Are we living a "simulation?" I don't know. I've contemplated that thought since I was a kid. It's all just another theory. A theory which has been fueled in popularity by the aftermath of The Matrix series -- a science-fiction novel. I'm not arrogant and all-knowing enough to confirm that we "indeed" are or not.

"I think therefore I exist" - Rene Descartes

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You keep stating that you're not "one of those" conpiracy nuts, and I want to believe you, but everything you continue to state continues to follow the pattern of a "conspiracy nut." If it quacks like a duck...

Are we living a "simulation?" I don't know. I've contemplated that thought since I was a kid. It's all just another theory. A theory which has been fueled in popularity by the aftermath of The Matrix series -- a science-fiction novel. I'm not arrogant and all-knowing enough to confirm that we "indeed" are or not.

"I think therefore I exist" - Rene Descartes

science is not conspiracy, theo.

indeed, photons have "doubles" and can "feel" what the other feels no matter the distance.

that seems to indicate something on the scale of what i am attempting to discuss here.

not some kind of ranting about time travel and whatnot.

speaking of time travel, an interesting tidbit of info: time travel is indeed possible.

time slows down the faster you go. in fact, due to our earths gravitational pull, we experience time at a different rate than astronauts. however, it is a miniscule difference.

ugh...relativity....

I'm not talking about science. I'm talking about someone making the statement saying "we are indeed living in an illusory world." That is not "science," because the nature of science is to always have enough humility to admit that a mere theory or a hypothesis is just that -- merely theory, and not fact. There is no serious scientist in this world that claims that the idea of living in a simulated environment is a proven fact, and do not use words like "indeed" when describing such a theory. Only pseudo-scientists and conspiracy theorists do.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm not talking about science. I'm talking about someone making the statement saying "we are indeed living in an illusory world." That is not "science," because the nature of science is to always have enough humility to admit that a mere theory or a hypothesis is just that -- merely theory, and not fact. There is no serious scientist in this world that claims that the idea of living in a simulated environment is a proven fact, and do not use words like "indeed" when describing such a theory. Only pseudo-scientists and conspiracy theorists do.

illusory as in we are not actually touching the ground when we walk, touching a chair when we sit, etc. that is a fact.

illusory as in our mind regularly plays tricks on us to convince us of what we see (or feel) is real.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

illusory as in we are not actually touching the ground when we walk, touching a chair when we sit, etc. that is a fact.

illusory as in our mind regularly plays tricks on us to convince us of what we see (or feel) is real.

If by that you mean that the atoms from our feet do not actually touch the atoms of the dirt then yes you are correct -- but weren't we talking about a "simulation" type world a la The Matrix? Let's not stray from the original subject.

A mind playing tricks -- like a mirage in the desert, depth perception being deceived by light sources and shadowing, brain chemicals being manipulated by drug substances, childhood imaginations running wild -- or do you simply mean anything and everything on a regular basis being a trick -- because yes, everything we see, feel, and perceive is just an interpretation by our human senses, as other living organisms will "see" and "feel" their surroundings in a differently... and therefore we cannot determine that our own sensory perception is absolute.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If by that you mean that the atoms from our feet do not actually touch the atoms of the dirt then yes you are correct -- but weren't we talking about a "simulation" type world a la The Matrix? Let's not stray from the original subject.

A mind playing tricks -- like a mirage in the desert, depth perception being deceived by light sources and shadowing, brain chemicals being manipulated by drug substances, childhood imaginations running wild -- or do you simply mean anything and everything on a regular basis being a trick -- because yes, everything we see, feel, and perceive is just an interpretation by our human senses, as other living organisms will "see" and "feel" their surroundings in a differently... and therefore we cannot determine that our own sensory perception is absolute.

as the thread title implies, yes, a holographic reality. by our feet never really touching the ground, by our eyes never really seeing what is there (did you know our brains filter out a large percentage of reality because it is deemed unimportant?), i guess i am sticking with the whole of the thread.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Here, the Illusory fact of life is that there is a period of reality which we do not cognitively compute. Take our visual system for example. We see things in a smooth motion. But there is a period in between each visual instant. What is that? Do we know what happens there? No, we put it together in our heads by an assumption of casual relation.

Theo, the Descarte qoute is a bit problematic. The qoute lends itself to the argument here. If you are arguing against Casek, I suggest another route. It is that form of dualism which leads to the conception of the brain in a vat theory. Essentially what we are discussing here.

Casek,

I think you misrepresent the science sometimes. While what you say is not technically wrong, it usually carries a social component not really relevant to the scientific topic. Time travel is possible... In a certain respect. You can't blast yourself thousands of years in the past. There are very few experiments that test the boundaries of time. The closest are the ones being discussed here as far as quantum entaglement. Simeaultinaity was done away with in relativity, for all things happened in their own subjective experience of time. But the concept of two particles which experience their, blah blah you know the rest. My point being, the sensational properties your ascribing are no where near being pragmatic. Yet.

I think quantum computing is the tits becaue it fits into my own views on reducibility and what it is to be a subjective being. I think it will be a great test of physicalist theory and to test whether or not science does have something on reality.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

crooked: i don't believe i am misrepresenting anything. i was bringing up a few facts and tidbits to retort what theo was arguing. we'll get back on track soon.

as far as time travel being possible...well, it has been done...only on a micro scale. teleportation, too.

relativity is the key to time travel. i've got a great interview i was listening to the other night.

i'll upload it in a few. you'd dig it. i will give warning, it's a coast to coast am interview (via art bell), but it is with a prominent physicist. they aren't all "aliens and werewolves" on that show, ya know? the mars rover designer was just on the other day. i'm itching to listen to that interview.

quantum computing: i fully agree. it's very close to being completed. i knew about quantum computing froma math professor friend of mine back in '97 or so. i thought he was full of shit until 2001 when i read about it in a science mag. it will be fucking bad ass to turn on a computer and it's instantly on. i've read that scientists still aren't quite sure what they are going to be able to do with one. lots of debates going on. ghost space, fool! ghost space!

Link to post

Share on other sites

Professor of Physics at the Univ. of Conn., Dr. Ron Mallett shared his concept for a time machine, based on Einstein's two theories of relativity. Tests with atomic clocks have shown that speed and gravity can slow time down, said Mallett, who noted that if a person was near enough to a black hole for an hour or so, due to its massive gravity, a hundred years could have passed further away.

Gravity, which can be thought of as a "bending of space," can be manipulated locally, using a circulating light beam with a series of mirrors, that can swirl up empty space, he outlined. Such a device could be used for a time machine (see graphic below) by twisting space into a loop that connects the future to the past, Mallett proposed.

Interestingly, he suggested the past a person travels to wouldn't be the one they came from, but that of a parallel universe in which they'd live in co-existence with their younger self. The traveler would not be able to return to their normal timeline, and from our point of view, they'd simply disappear from the world. Mallett also commented that we wouldn't begin to see time travelers until such a device came into use in our time frame.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

that second picture (1st comment) i did a science report on that shit, scientists took a part of the sky (as big as the eye of lincoln on a penny) and magnified it over months and got that if thats in that such a small space what else is there?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

crooked: i don't believe i am misrepresenting anything. i was bringing up a few facts and tidbits to retort what theo was arguing. we'll get back on track soon.

You are misrepresenting science. You're claiming a theory as being fact, which goes against the most rudimentary principles of what science is. You misrepresented my statements by saying I was calling science a "conspiracy theory," when clearly your statement wasn't "science."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You are misrepresenting science. You're claiming a theory as being fact, which goes against the most rudimentary principles of what science is. You misrepresented my statements by saying I was calling science a "conspiracy theory," when clearly your statement wasn't "science."

tell me what isn't science please.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Go to your local laboratory, or to your local University and ask someone working/studying int he science field about this exact same theory in particular, and I guarantee you they'll give you the same answer.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Cartesian Dualism, as the base of this argument, is just as unfounded as any other real theory of conciousness. For this to be true it would pressupose a working, whole knowledgeo of consciousness, both direct and sub.

I think this is more interesting into the future of our lives, rather than questioning whether we are in a simulation. I feel like this speaks more towards science fiction as a humanitarian manifest destiny. We look to sci fi to direct the means of empirical research and in such just fulfill the dreams we had in the past.

Also, one could make the argument that as a physically limited being that which we interpret at reality is constrained already and thus a personal simulation of it. The percieved world is far different from what "reality" is. Objectively agreeing on a reality is near impossible due to subjective experience and inverted qualia, so what of even attempting to create a simulated world with such experiences? We should first have to understand the nature of consciousness itself as a whole, in relation to the "real world" before any of this would even become porbable.

I know you are studying Western Philosophy in school crooked, but have you ever studied Zen? The issues you are bringing up are all themes that are favorites of the old Zen masters.